THE GENETIC RELATIONS OF THE CETACEANS. 23 
for the evolutionist as for the believer in patterns and special 
creations. 
But I cannot believe that Dr. Brandt really means what he 
says: my familiarity with his previous works and train of thought 
forbids such a belief and I cannot doubt till I shall be authorita- 
tively undeceived, that his words simply involve a too energetic 
expression of dissent from those (if there be such) who would be- 
lieve that all so-called intermediate forms are exactly those in the 
line of descent from the more primitive to the more specialized 
ones. If this only is meant, I still find myself in agreement with 
Dr. Brandt, and admit that so-called intermediate forms do not 
necessarily prove the line of descent, but (if rightly so called) they 
do furnish all ranges of indication from a vague hint to absolute 
proof, according as they be more or less generalized, and more 
or less allied to those extinct forms in the regular line of de- 
scent, and by which can alone be demonstrated with certainty, 
according to Dr. Brandt, the lineage of any form. But how will Dr. 
Brandt avail himself of paleontology and identify and recognize, 
when found, those ancestral types? How approach it otherwise 
than by the same methods by which the ‘‘ generalized ” and “‘inter- 
mediate” characters are recognized? The great difficulty, indeed, 
consists in the identification of the forms in the direct line of 
descent ; and the exact identification is practically impossible, but 
it may be sooner or later sufficiently approximated to give us tol- 
erably satisfactory ideas as to the origin and successive differenti- 
ation of various types. And that end will be attained by the 
recognition of forms as successively intermediate as to structure 
and time of development, and thus it will be exactly by interme- 
diate forms (and not the less so because revealed by palzon- 
tology) that the lineage will be proved ! 
Toxonomice values of characters.— Dr. Brandt further contends 
that the teeth, the olfactory organs, and the nasal bones have no 
determinative value.* And yet he gives the suppression of the 
teeth and the codrdinate development of whalebone as the sole — : 
distinctive characters of the whalebone whales. Therefore, it is 
evident that he thinks that the teeth do furnish distinctive char- 
i He recalls the familiar facts that i in early youth all Ceta- 
if Dem Geruchs- — = 
organ, oder den Nasenbeinen | vermag ich ra ines keinen Werth bei der Veriei 
